Case law

Coleman v. Merritt

District Court, W.D. Washington · Apr 22, 2025

The second step of the qualified immunity analysis provides that defendants are 22 entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or 23 constitutional rights of which a … Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the right allegedly violated 2 was clearly established at the time of the violation; if the plaintiff meets this burden, then the 3 defendant bears the burden of establishing

Westmoreland v. State

73 Wash. App. 286 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 31, 1994

In deciding whether qualified immunity applies to discretionary functions, courts apply a 2-part objective test: (1) was the relevant law "clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation? … is clearly established that the particular act by the public official constitutes a violation of the right involved, rather than whether the right itself is clearly established”), cert. granted, vacated and appeal dismissed

Betty Jean Triplett v. Washington Dept of Social & Health Services

193 Wash. App. 497 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 21, 2016

The prevailing view is that once the defense of qualified immunity is properly raised, the plaintiff has the burden of showing the defendant violated the plaintiffs clearly established federal right. MARTIN A. … Clearly established law The individual defendants are still qualifiedly immune from liability, even for a constitutional violation, if their conduct was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established law

Petcu v. State

121 Wash. App. 36 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu’s clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wn.2d at 65-66 .

Petcu v. State

86 P.3d 1234 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 30, 2004

Finally, he argued that Smith was not entitled to qualified immunity because she violated Petcu's clearly established right to family unity. … Once a defendant asserts a defense of qualified immunity, the plaintiff must show that a clearly established constitutional right exists. Robinson, 119 Wash.2d at 65-66 , 830 P.2d 318 .

Janaszak v. State

173 Wash. App. 703 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 7, 2013

law. 37 A claim of qualified immunity to a § 1983 action presents two issues: (1) do the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) was the right at issue “clearly established” at the time of the defendant … ’s alleged misconduct. 38 Qualified immunity applies unless the defendant’s conduct violated a clearly established right. 39 Both issues present “ ‘essentially legal question [s]’ ” for the court to decide. 40 The court may

Edmiston v. City Of Port Angeles

360 F. Supp. 3d 1147 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 21, 2018

Therefore, in the absence of authority demonstrating that the right was clearly established, Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity. … Nor can Edmiston negate that Officer Brusseau is entitled to qualified immunity on the search issue, if a search indeed occurred, in the absence of clearly established law.

Strange v. Spokane County

171 Wash. App. 585 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Oct 30, 2012

The second question, specific to qualified immunity, is whether the constitutional right was clearly established given the specific context of the case before the court. … Qualified Immunity ¶20 Mr.

Osborne v. Seymour

164 Wash. App. 820 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Nov 9, 2011

Qualified Immunity ¶41 “Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials who perform discretionary functions are usually shielded from liability for civil damages if their conduct ‘does not violate clearly established … For qualified immunity purposes, “clearly established” means: “[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.

Benjamin v. Washington State Bar Ass'n

138 Wash. 2d 506 · Washington Supreme Court · Jul 22, 1999

Benjamin’s termination the law was not clearly established that the termination constituted state action, nor was the law clearly established that Dr. … Consequently, we need not address the second step in qualified immunity analysis—determining whether *528 the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time the dispute arose.

Gausvik v. Abbey

126 Wash. App. 868 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jan 25, 2005

Qualified Immunity ¶66 A DSHS employee cannot be held personally liable for damages under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless his conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Robinson v. … After a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show a clearly established constitutional right existed that the defendant violated.

Gurno v. Town of LaConner

65 Wash. App. 218 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Apr 20, 1992

Qualified Immunity Respondent officers cite various doctrines of qualified immunity for police officers who act in good faith, arguing that appellant failed to introduce evidence of their lack of good faith in arresting her … Qualified immunity under § 1983 is granted to police officers performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Tyner v. STATE, DEPT. OF SOCIAL & HEALTH

137 Wash. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Mar 13, 2007

Qualified Immunity ¶ 26 DSHS contends that its officers are entitled to qualified immunity from Tyner's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 First Amendment claim because "[t]here is no law clearly establishing that criticizing one's supervisor … We explained qualified immunity in Wilson: Public officials are immune from suit unless the "law clearly proscribed the actions" they took.

Tortes v. King County

119 Wash. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 2, 2003

These individual public officials are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. … It is preferred that a defendant’s entitlement to qualified immunity be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment. 19 The central purpose of qualified immunity is to protect public officials from interference with their

Thomas L. Sluman v. State of Washington

418 P.3d 125 · Court of Appeals of Washington · May 22, 2018

Nevertheless, the decisions do not bestow absolute immunity on the officers. In short, Thomas Sluman presents many cases that establish that Trooper Bart Olson violated his clearly established Fourth Amendment rights. … Davis, focused on whether Officer Danny Davis should receive qualified immunity.

Thomas v. Cannon

289 F. Supp. 3d 1182 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jan 30, 2018

DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ...1213 A. Waiver...1213 1. Markert, Wiley, Cannon...1213 2. Zaro...1214 B. Constitutional Violation...1215 C. Clearly Established Law...1217 1. … The Court nonetheless affirmed qualified immunity for the officers because it recognized this rule was not clearly established in 1997 when the flash-bang was used. Id. at 784 .

Jones v. Department of Health

140 Wash. App. 476 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 4, 2007

of a clearly established constitutional right. … asserts qualified immunity, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant violated a clearly established constitutional right in order to survive summary judgment. 23 Jones claims the individual defendants violated his

Estate of Lee v. City of Spokane

101 Wash. App. 158 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Jun 15, 2000

Police officers have qualified immunity from liability for civil damages for conduct that “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Id. … Entitlement to qualified immunity may be established, and was established here, as a matter of law. Robinson v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 34, 65 , 830 P.2d 318 (1992). By the plaintiffs’ own account, Mr.

Gausvik v. Abbey

107 P.3d 98 · Court of Appeals of Washington · Feb 23, 2005

Qualified Immunity ¶ 66 A DSHS employee cannot be held personally liable for damages under a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action unless their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional *109 right. Robinson v. … After a defendant asserts the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff must show a clearly established constitutional right existed that the defendant violated.

Peltier v. Sacks

328 F. Supp. 3d 1170 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 16, 2018

was not clearly established. 4 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate … A two-part test resolves claims of qualified immunity by determining whether plaintiffs have alleged facts that "make out a violation of a constitutional right," and if so, whether the "right at issue was 'clearly established